Talk:Chemistry (etymology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Moved here from Talk:Chemistry

The first etymology (in the first sentence) dosen't get to the essential point. The basic roots of "chemistry" derives from the 7,000 year study of how to transmute "earthen" metals into "gold". The ancient "Egypt" word kēme, which stands for earth, is the root word of chemistry; this later became "khēmia", or transmutation, by 300 AD, and then “al-khemia” in the Persian area, at 760 AD, and alchemy in the dark ages, and the “chymistry” in 1661 with Boyle’s publication, and now “chemistry”. I will change the intro to the following:

Chemistry, from the ancient Egyptian word "khēmia" meaning transmutation of earth, is the science of matter at the atomic to molecular scale, dealing primarily with collections of atoms (such as molecules, crystals, and metals).

to reflect this. --Sadi Carnot 04:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sadi, I'm changing it back again to the following:

Chemistry (possibly from the Greek word χημεία (chemeia) meaning "cast together" or "pour together") is the science of matter at the atomic to molecular scale, dealing primarily with collections of atoms (such as molecules, crystals, and metals).

because that is an uncertain and disputed etymology... We have a dedicated section for all the various theories... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Codex, I am quite aware that the evolution of words is an intricate branch of study being well subject to debate. The first sentence etymology, however, should be clear. In other words, did chemistry derive from the study of "pouring things together" or did chemistry derive from the study of "transformations of earth"? The Egyptian "khēmia" is the oldest etymology. Hieroglyphics, aside from Sumerian pictographs, is the oldest written language, dating back to 3,200 BC. --Sadi Carnot 18:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Remember, our task here really is simply to reflect published views... The published views are not at all certain that khemia has anything to do with it, from what I can tell, but it would certainly be legitimate to mention which sources consider this more likely... The question, as you say, is whether the 3rd c. Greek form khemeia / kheimeia, transmutation of metals, derives from Gk. khumeia = pouring, kheein, to pour; or, does it derive from the name Khemia for Egypt (as found in Plutarch)...? Etymologists are not certain which, but usually it's assumed that it cannot be both. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Codex, when it comes to "published views", according to William H. Brock, from his 1992 book The Norton History of Chemistry, James R. Partington's three-volume magnum opus History of Chemistry (1969) is the reference to which "all historians of chemistry remain profoundly indebted."[1] Thus, knowing this, according to Partington, from pg.1 of A Short History of Chemistry (1937), "the earliest applications of chemical processes were concerned with the extraction and working of metals and the manufacture of pottery, which were forms of crafts practiced many centuries before the Bronze Age cultures of Egypt and Mesopotamia.” Thus, according Partington, alchemy came from Egypt and Mesopotamia.[2] In addition, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word chemistry, as we know, derives from the word “al-chemy” which has the following etymology:

1362, from O.Fr. alkemie, from M.L. alkimia, from Arabic al-kimiya, from Gk. khemeioa (found c.300 C.E. in a decree of Diocletian against "the old writings of the Egyptians"), all meaning "alchemy." Perhaps from an old name for Egypt (Khemia, lit. "land of black earth," found in Plutarch), or from Gk. khymatos "that which is poured out," from khein "to pour," related to khymos "juice, sap."

To solidify this argument, according to the “published views” of Egyptologist Gary Greenberg, a member of the Egypt Exploration Society and the American Research Center in Egypt and the Archaeological Institute of America, from the 2000 book 101 Myths of the Bible – How Ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History, the early Egyptians formulated the first “creation myth”, specifically the Hermopolitian Creation myth, in which the world was originally flooded, then after a period of days the first land arose in the form of a mound (called the "Nun"), and from this land all life emerged. This story was structured over the 120-day annual flood cycle of the Nile River, in which after the water receded, a black fertile life-giving soil would be remain called “keme” in which crops could be grown.

In the Pentateuch, written about 800 BC, Hebrew Scribes, whose ancestors had originally migrated out of Egypt in 1300 BC, incorporated this myth into Biblical narration, in which first the world was covered with water, then Noah, i.e. a synthesis of “Nun” from the Egyptian Ogdoad, searched for land by sending out three birds at 40-day intervals (120-days total), after which Noah's ark became beached on the first land. Noah, from who all life emerged, had three sons: Ham, Shem, and Japheth. In Greenberg’s own words:

Ham is pronounced “Chem” in Hebrew, and he is depicted as the father of the Egyptian and African peoples. The name derives from the Egyptian word “Keme”, an ancient name for Egypt. It means “the black land” and refers the fertile black soil left behind when the annual Nile flood withdraws to its banks.

I certainly can’t argue and go into a full account of Mesopotamia and Egyptian mythologies and etymologies, e.g. the world’s first chemist was ‘Tapputi’ the perfume-maker[3], who was mentioned in a cuneiform tablet from the second millennium BC in Mesopotamia, but the point of this lecture is that Egyptian chemistry was practiced long before Greek chemistry; Greek chemistry derived and evolved out of Egyptian chemistry not the other way around as the current intro would have us believe. Moreover, as we all know, according, fossil and genetic evidence, all thoughts, peoples, and ideas, derived from migrations out of Africa’s Rift Valley passing through the Nile River valley, which began about 50,000 years ago.

To summarize, the word chemistry is an Egyptian word based on the study of transmutations of earth [the prefix chem- (meaning earth) + the suffix –ist (one that makes or produces) + -ry (the art of)]. The earth, in total, is made of 92 naturally occurring elements. Chemistry is the study of the transmutation of elements, and it’s word origins reflect this obvious fact. Moreover, according to the Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry, we have the following basic definition.

Chemistry – the study of the elements and the compounds they form.[4]

I hope this clarifies things, such that we can now change the intro sentence, without further issue, to the following:

Chemistry, from the ancient Egyptian word "khēmia" meaning transmutation of earth, is the study of the elements and the compounds they form.[4] Generally, chemistry is the science of matter at the atomic to molecular scale, dealing primarily with collections of atoms (such as molecules, crystals, and metals).

In this manner we put the core Egyptian etymology definition first and let the reader reference other etymology derivatives second, such as the Greek word χημεία (chemeia) meaning "cast together" or "pour together", in the etymology discussion section. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 17:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The first "published view" you quoted (Brock) doesn't give an etymology. The second "published view", the Online Etymological, said precisely what I said and agree with, that it's "either - or - perhaps"... The third "published view" you quoted, (Greenberg) again, did not give an etymology. The Brock and Greenberg quotes might well lend support to writing in the article something about the Egyptian practice of Chemistry. But it's a novel synthesis to extrapolate from these authors, our own etymological arguments for one of the possible derivations over the other, or even to connect one to the other. As I said, we must reflect published views on the etymology, and so far the only published views we have seen on the etymology, all basically say "either-or -perhaps" between the two suggested choices, so that's also what we must say. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

My friend, here I am trying to honestly clean a short (un-sourced) sentence of mis-information, which is clearly the case to anyone who happens to reads books on the history of chemistry as a hobby, e.g. I personally own at least a dozen such chemistry history books (see, for example, the article History of the molecule, which I wrote last week on request), and here you are arguing with me over an un-sourced Etymology of alchemy section to Wikipedia, not yourself adding constructive sources to the argument or article, where instead I am pouring out sources to back up what contributions I make. To continue with this debate, from Britannica 2002 Edition,

The word “alchemy” is a European one, derived from Arabic, but the origin of the root word, chem, is uncertain. Words similar to it have been found in most ancient languages, with different meanings, but conceivably somehow related to alchemy. In fact, the Greeks, Chinese, and Indians usually referred to what Westerners call alchemy as “The Art,” or by terms denoting change or transmutation.

Thus, according to Britannica alchemy is an Arabic word, not a Greek word. Arabic chemistry, however, did not come into fruition until the seventh century AD when the Islamic Arabs took over Alexandria.[5] Alexandria, to review, was the capital of Egypt from its founding by Alexander the Great in 322 BC to 642 AD, when it was subdued by the Arabs. Thus, the Arabic terminology, inevitably, has an older etymology based on “Egyptian” thoughts. In this direction, if we look in Julian Franklyn’s 1935 Dictionary of the Occult, we find the following two entries (page 1):[6]

Alchemy (Etymology)
Divergent views are held concerning the etymology of the term alchemy. According to Sir Wallis Budge, the eminent Egyptologist, it is derived from khemein, an Egyptian word meaning “the preparation of the black ore or powder” used in transmutations. Another writer asserts that the art owes it name to the fact that Egypt was once known as khem—the country of the dark soil and home to chemistry. To this name was added the Arabic article al, “the”, and so the hermetical art became known as al-khem and later to the Western world as alkhemie.
Origin of Alchemy
There is abundant evidence to prove that the ancient Egyptians were thoroughly skilled in the arts of metallurgy, enameling, dyeing, and glass-tinting; and were fully conversant with the use of mercury in the process of separating gold and silver from the native matrix. Arising out of this wonderful process, there was created an oxide for which one claimed wonderful properties. This oxide became mystically identified with the god Osiris, and was regarded with superstitious reverence. In addition to its power of transmuting base metals into gold or silver, it was said to be a very potent agent in the healing of all diseases and to have rejuvenating powers also. The ideas surrounding the Philosopher's stone may have developed from this. As to whether the transmutation of base metals into gold or silver was successfully performed by the ancient Egyptians no proof is available. But they certainly possessed a very sound practical knowledge of what we term “synthetic chemistry”. And in the manufacture of gold alloys and artificial precious stones they were remarkably proficient. In his Les Origines d’ Alchimie, the late Professor Berthelot drew attention to a papyrus of workshop recipes found in the tomb of an Egyptian mummy, and he quoted the statement made by John of Antioch that Diocletian had ordered all Egyptian works on the subject of gold-making to be burnt.

Moreover, according to chemistry historian Matt Tweed, from his recent 2003 book Essential Elements - Atoms, Quarks, and the Periodic Table, we find the following (pg. 2):[7]

Early Alchemy
The roots of chemistry stretch back into the dim and distant past, to when our ancestors first prepared colored earths for paint, learned the secrets of fire, and started experimenting with the arcane intricacies of cookery. The ancient Egyptians knew of seven metals, as well as carbon and sulfur, all easily extracted from natural ores. The art of khemia, supposedly revealed by angels, linked the metals to the seven known planets: Sun (Gold), Mars (Iron), Jupiter (Tin), Saturn (lead), Moon (Silver), Mercury (Mercury), Venus (Copper), and assigned them qualities.

I hope I have made my point. The dominant view, as sourced, holds that Egyptian terminology is correct etymology for the word chemistry. The word chemistry, again, derives from the following chronology:

  1. Egyptian chemistry [5,000 BC – 400 BC], Alexandria has the world’s largest library
  2. Greek chemistry [332 BC – 642 AD], the Greeks take over Alexandria
  3. Arabian chemistry [642 AD – 1200], the Arabs take over Alexandria, e.g. Jabir is the main chemist.
  4. European chemistry [1300 – Present], Gerber builds on Arabic chemistry
  5. Chemistry [1661], Boyle writes his classic chemistry text The Sceptical Chymist
  6. Chemistry [1787], Lavoisier writes his classic Elements of Chemistry
  7. Chemistry [1803], Dalton publishes his Atomic Theory

Now, if as you have mentioned, later the article, you want to add that an English Professor named Ernest Weekley claims that “alchemy” has its root in the Greek word meaning “to pour out” or “mix” than that will certainly be a reasonable contribution.[8]

References

  1. ^ Brock, William, .H. (1992). The Chemical Tree - A History of Chemistry. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. ISBN 00393320685. 
  2. ^ Partington, James, R. (1937). A Short History of Chemistry. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.,. ISBN 0486659771. 
  3. ^ Strathern, Paul (2000). Mendeleyev's Dream - The Quest For the Elements. New York: Berkley Books. ISBN 0425184676. 
  4. ^ a b Daintith, John (2004). Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198609183. 
  5. ^ Levere, Trevor, H. (2001). Transforming Matter - A History of Chemistry from Alchemy to the Buckyball. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0801866103. 
  6. ^ Franklyn, Julian (1935). Dictionary of the Occult. New York: Kessinger Publishing. 
  7. ^ Tweed, Matt (2003). Essential Elements - Atoms, Quarks, and the Periodic Table. New York: Walker & Company. ISBN 0802714080. 
  8. ^ Weekley, Ernest (1967). Etymological Dictionary of Modern English. New York: Dover Publications. ISBN 0486218732. 

To summarize my point, the introductory sentence needs to reflect the dominant and most accurate view, i.e. the chemistry is an Egyptian word not a Greek word. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 14:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been nothing but considerate, who are you to lecture me and make a personal attack calling me "the most irritating editor you have ever come across" while simultaneously telling me to be considerate to others? Personal attacks are not allowed on wikipedia, and neither are original research and novel synthesis. It's tragically apparent that you cannot find any source for your novel synthesis, and cannot find a single reference anywhere that shares your certainty that the word comes from Egyptian, except for E. Wallis Budge and the "Dictionary of the Occult".. All the other authors who mention this, all carefully mention the fact that it is disputed and uncertain between that origin, and Khumeia. You may have some good arguments in favor of the Egyptian origin, but, once again, please read carefully and slowly, THE DISCUSSION PAGE IS NOT THE PLACE TO ADVANCE OUR OWN ARGUMENTS, OR CONDUCT ORIGINAL RESEARCH. That is policy. Luckily for you, Wikimedia have just created a new wiki where you can conduct all the Original Research you like, please check out v:. Also please remove your personal attacks against me, or I will remove them myself in accordance with policy. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
You are actually claiming "Dictionary of the Occult" as your soure for the "dominant view" ???!!! Weekley is not the only specialist source for etymology in the world, if you really want the "dominant view", we should find out exactly what the OED says... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned my wording per your request, but my opinion still stands. It was you who reverted me when I was only trying to make a simply correction. I have added one more source (Tweed, 2003). I hope this ends our discussion. --Sadi Carnot 14:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

(Tweed, 2003) as you quoted mentions that the Egyptians had an art of "Khemia" and gives impressive details, but it would certainly be interesting to know what his primary sources are. Does he mention them? (Is this from Dictionary of the Occult?) At any rate, this discussion has turned up some good sources, so now the article can not only give both of the commonly held views of the etymology, but actually almost attribute where these views originated. I'd still like to see what OED entries for "chemistry" and "alchemy" say as I trust this source far more than Weekley. Would anyone reading this have access to the OED? Thanks! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume by "OED" you are referring to this link: Online Etymology Dictionary, which is already linked to above? Nevertheless, in regards to this debate, I give up, you win. Somehow, three days ago, by making a simple change of one excerpt of a sentence from this (possibly from the Greek word χημεία (chemeia) meaning "cast together" or "pour together") to this (from the ancient Egyptian word "khēmia"), which I knew was intuitively wrong (just from memory), now I am being accused of doing original research. Well that's great, I quit, you win. Have fun! --Sadi Carnot 15:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! No, OED means the Oxford English Dictionary, which is the definitive authority for etymology, the compilers have exhaustively tracked down the earliest known usage of every single word in the English language along with all the variants, with comprehensive information on the derivations and hypothetical reconstructions. It's so huge that the home edition is in micro-print you have to look at with a magnifying glass, and still takes up two huge volumes that a weak person couldn't even lift. THe library edition takes up an entire shelf. I think there is also an online version that is pay-access.
I'm sorry it looks like you are throwing in the towel. This hasn't been a fruitless discussion. Just look at all the great source-material you have dug up on the origins of chemistry itself (not just the word) that really ought to be incorporated into the article. And by the way, I think the lead ought to mention both proposed derivations, not just the one or the other. I have no hard feelings over our previous disagreements, please don't go away now! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I just had a look at this Etymonline thing and it is very good, drawing on both Weekley and OED. I notice you left out the following paragraph at the alchemy entry over there, where it quotes the OED:
"Mahn ... concludes, after an elaborate investigation, that Gr. khymeia was probably the original, being first applied to pharmaceutical chemistry, which was chiefly concerned with juices or infusions of plants; that the pursuits of the Alexandrian alchemists were a subsequent development of chemical study, and that the notoriety of these may have caused the name of the art to be popularly associated with the ancient name of Egypt." [OED] . Looks like there may be more than one side to the story after all...? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New article ideas

Maybe, there is another possibility for the source of the word, 'alchemy'. Munda-Dravidian (mleccha):

Austro-asiatic (Munda etyma): Sa. jEGgEd `red'. Mu. jEGgEd `red'. KW jEGgEd |So. jE'E `red'. @(M079)

Ta. ce-, cem-, cevv-, ceyya, cētakam, cēttu red; cekkam, cekkar, cekkal, cekil, cemmai, cey, cevvu, cevval, cevēr-eṉal, cē, cēkkai, cēku, cēkai, cēntu, cēppu, cēy, civv- eṉal, civappu, civēr-eṉal redness; ceccai id., Ixora coccinea (with scarlet blossoms); ceppal red colour (as of dawn); ceyyavaṉ, ceyyaṉ, ceyyāṉ, ceyyōṉ, cēyaṉ, cēyāṉ, civappaṉ person of red or brown complexion; ceval, cevalai, civalai ruddy person or animal; cival Indian partridge; cē (-pp-, -nt-) to redden, get angry; cēkil tawny-coloured bull; cēt-ā tawny-coloured cow; cēyttu, cēytu that which is red; civa (-pp-, -nt-) to redden, blush, become angry; cekka-cciva (-v-, -nt-), cekkañ-ceku to be deep red; cekka-ccivēr- eṉal, cekka-ccevēr-eṉal deep redness; cen-nāy brown-coloured dog, Canis dukhunensis; kempu ruby (< Ka.). Ma. ce-, cem-, cēya red; cemma, cevva, cona, covva redness; cekkal dawn; cekki-ppū, cetti-ppū, cecci-ppū I. coccinea; ceṅṅuka, cempikka, conekka, cuvakka to be red; (Tiyya) cemappu redness; cemakkuva to redden; cuvappu, cōppu red; red colour; ruby; cecca a kind of ruby; cen- nāyi wolf or rather C. primaevus; kempu ruby (< Ka.). Ko. ken, kt red; kep red, red- ness; kep v, ken v red cow; ke ny wild dog; keky red clay; keb gal flint; k kaṭy clinkers (i.e. red lumps) from smithy fireplace; kepn n.pr. red bullock or male dog; fem. kepy; kempn n.pr. man; kempy n.pr. woman. To. k&odotdot;- red (e.g. k&odotdot; moṇ red soil; k&odotdot;ms̱ n.pr. reddish buffalo); ke ny wild dog. Ka. ke-, keṃ- red; keṅka, keṅgal, keccane, keccu, keñcage, keñcane, kendu, kebbe, kempu, kēsu, kisu redness; kekkarisu, keṅgalisu to become red; keñca a red man; fem. keñci; kembāra, kembāre redness of evening; kēpala, kevala, kisgāra I. coccinea ; (a few cpds. with ce and ca- are to be taken as < Ta. or Te.). Koḍ. c- (cp-, cnd-) to become red; cndë red; cpï red, redness; ? cmë bullock (in song) (all the preceding < Ma.); kem- red (in a few cpds.: ken-deŋge brown coconut; (in song) coconut; ken-ny wild dog; keñ-jeri red squirrel; kem-buttï red anthill (in song); keñ-jpï a dull red). Tu. kem-, keñca, keñci red; kempu redness; ruby; kēpuḷa, kēpula, kēpaḷè I. coccinea; genda reddish; gende a reddish-coloured ox; fem. gendi; canna red; canna-nāyi wolf. Te. ceṃ- red (in a few cpds.); ceṅgāvi reddish colour; reddish (kāvi id.); ke-, kem- red (in a few cpds.); kempu red; redness; a ruby. Pa. key dark red, reddish brown. Kur. x&etildemacr;so red; blood; x&etildemacr;s blood; anger. Malt. qéso red; qéslo reddish; qésu blood; qésoláre to redden (as the eyes, face, or fruit when ripening). Br. xīsun red; gold. [The wild dog or red dog (which is neither dog nor wolf) is classified by R.I. Pocock, Fauna of British India, Mammalia , 2nd ed., vol. ii (1941), in the genus Cuon , which consists of one species only, C. alpinus , with a number of races, including C. a. dukhunensis , Sykes (habitat the Deccan) and C. a. primaevus Hodgs. (habitat Kumaun to Bhutan). One race, C. a. infuscus (habitat Tenasserim), was formerly C. rutilans Blanford, but C. rutilans has been used also for C. a. dukhunensis. ] (DEDR 1931).


Let's try to be nice to each other, and work togeter to build this ariticle using all of the sources we have collected. --Sadi Carnot 13:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

My congratulations, I did already wonder why there was a big etymology discussion on the chemistry talk page including references but nothing on the page itself. The logical step would be to start a general etymology page using the collected material and you did just that. Again my congratulations. I recommend that the article is lenient with respect to different theories provided that references are given. Some time ago I contributed to the chem article after reading an interesting book on the subject (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chem&oldid=13826312} but my edit was ruthlessly reverted by "the professionals" on this topic. So I am thinking to myself I will try again on this page but I will leave it up to you if you include it. Bottom line is: A theory offered by a credible source even when wrong should be represented in the article with a nice explanation why it is wrong. I do not believe in sensorship V8rik 19:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank-you. By all means contribute. Hopefully, between you, User:Codex Sinaiticus, myself and other, we can build a good article here. Talk later: --Sadi Carnot 15:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partington

The paragraph on Partington is a bit confused since it starts talking about his full four volume work, but then at the end references his earlier "Short History of Chemistry". Do you have the exact reference? I have the full four volumes and might be able to help out. I do not have the shorter Dover edition. --Bduke 08:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptian kēme (chem) and PIE *ghðem-

Egyptian word kēme (chem), that means earth is very similar to Proto-Indo-European word *ghðem- that too means earth. And here are proofs that PIE=Adamic: [1] Wikinger 19:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The root meaning of Egyptian km.t is "black", not "earth"; that is a secondary development. It is unrelated to PIE. Flembles 07:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)